↓ Skip to main content

O desenvolvimento da linguagem da criança após o implante coclear: uma revisão de literatura

Overview of attention for article published in CoDAS, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
O desenvolvimento da linguagem da criança após o implante coclear: uma revisão de literatura
Published in
CoDAS, June 2016
DOI 10.1590/2317-1782/20162015151
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clarice Gomes Monteiro, Ana Augusta de Andrade Cordeiro, Hilton Justino da Silva, Bianca Arruda Manchester de Queiroga

Abstract

review the literature for studies that describe the language development of children after they receive cochlear implants. Literature review on the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Science Direct databases, tracing the selection and critical analysis stages in the journals found and selected. We selected original articles looking at children with cochlear implants, which mentioned language development after surgery. Case studies, dissertations, books chapters, editorials, and original articles that did not mention aspects of oral communication development, perception of sounds and speech, and other stages of human development, in the title, abstract, or text, were excluded. A protocol was created for this study including the following points: author, year, location, sample, type of study, objectives, methods used, main results, and conclusion. 5,052 articles were found based on the search descriptors and free terms. Of this total, 3,414 were excluded due to the title, 1,245 due to the abstract, and 358 from reading the full text; we selected 35, of which 28 were repeated. In the end, seven articles were analyzed in this review. We conclude that cochlear implant users have slower linguistic and educational development than their peers with normal hearing - though they are better than conventional prostheses users - and they are able to match them over time. There is great variability in the test methodologies, thus reducing the effectiveness and reliability of the results found.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 28 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Psychology 5 8%
Linguistics 3 5%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 29 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2016.
All research outputs
#23,319,379
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from CoDAS
#3
of 5 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,666
of 355,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CoDAS
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.3. This one scored the same or higher as 2 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.